Chris

Thrilled to announce our acquisition of Wareable Media Group! Expertise in wearables & smart home tech meets our commitment to market leading reviews. New era, same trusted quality. More details in PR release: trustedreviews.com/info/trustedre… #acquisition #technology #wearables #smarthome

@Jameswise Thank you James. Appreciate the reply and for making that clear.

Hi Chris - we will of course only invest in companies that follow the law on this issue. It is really important - and we have been clear ( many times! ) that copyright rules should be respected, use of copyright works to train AI in the UK will require a licence unless an exception exists. Hope that helps. I know there’s a subset of people sharing misinformation about this which is a real shame given how important it is. I guess that’s internet trolls for you, they care more about attention than the answer! I can’t answer every question on this issue but you can always consult sovereignai.gov.uk for anything else.

Hi @Jameswise can you tell me if the UK's Sovereign AI Fund will invest in companies that train on copyrighted work without a licence? Thank you

What’s happened to @NandosUK ? Used to be great and now they lie about delivery time, food turns up wrong and horrendous and then horrendous customer support..

Hi all, I’m looking for some freelance writers to conduct some product reviews of US products. If you have been sent any 2025 products in the Mobile, Tv & Audio, Wearable, Home or Computing space then send me a DM. Thanks Chris

@getpeid If you go to the right places they are already honest 😉

Make reviews honest again

@CyrusShepard @mikefutia And junk like this … reddit.com

@mikefutia Looks like a perfect candidate

Google's original Site Reputation Abuse policy wiped out 3rd-party coupon subdomains CNN CNET USA Today Business Insider What do you think the newly updated policy will target?

@jaclynbrandt @lilyraynyc Hi jaclyn, would love to know more about the group you are in and if I could join it.

@lilyraynyc It would be interesting to see (once this all settles) large companies vs. small creators. I am in a group with thousands of small creators who lost their entire incomes with HCU. So far, no one has said (out loud) that they have seen any kind of recovery. But it's possible :)

Here's how 6 of the biggest HCU recoveries I've found so far are looking today... and shocker: to my knowledge, these sites did not make a public stink about anything. 🤯

@mattswider @retro_dodo @ThisHouseFresh @theshortcut @ItsMrProducts @baggingspam @rustybrick @searchliaison @googlesearchc @futurism @TweakTown Their authors are turning out 20 news stories a day and aren’t mentioning that they are using ai… that’s quite some pace if you ask me…..

TheShortcut.com pays a US team full-time salaries to write original tech content. An Indian site has ripped off our content – including my PS5 Pro article – without any credit using AI (it's very obvious) and they now rank ahead of us on Google. This is NOT sustainable. What can be done to support original content, Google? @searchliaison @johnmu @lilyraynyc

Hey @lilyraynyc we can all rest easy.. I can sort everything for only $1 now..

@perplexity_ai @TIME What does @wordpressdotcom get out of this?

A core belief at Perplexity is that everyone should have access to relevant and accurate information on the topics that matter to them. To ensure that publishers can benefit as Perplexity grows, today we’re excited to launch our publishers program with our first partners: @TIME, @derspiegel, @FortuneMagazine, @Entrepreneur, @TexasTribune, and @wordpressdotcom.

@perplexity_ai @TIME Any sign of paying publishers for their content when you scrape/steal it instead?

@lilyraynyc Would they be sites that could benefit from Prime Day? If so it may just be increased interest in the niche..

Seeing a little positive movement among some HCU sites in the last few days.

@searchliaison @ukaop Thanks for your time Danny.

Always good to talk news and Google Search with @ukaop — thanks for the time and good discussions!

@dannysullivan @JohnMu hi both, we have a situation where a site has directly ripped off our entire site, down to its colours, layout and even authors is now out ranking us. We have submitted a take down request but received back a message saying there wasn’t sufficient evidence to take it down. The site of ours is the-ambient.com and the site ripping us off is iotlivingspace.com . Surely it’s obvious that this a complete replica of our site? Any advice you can offer on next steps would be appreciated

@uniguide @natejhake Drop me dm as there may be something you two would be interested in….

Nate, Are you aware of any clash action lawsuits going on on behalf of publishers? I know there are one-offs, like the @NYTimes, and I know Barry Diller is suing or working on a lawsuit. I am wondering if anyone is standing up for and working with smaller publishers that you know of, any anyone reading this. #publishing #copyright #barrydiller thehill.com/policy/technol…

Creators & copyright holders must stand together against corporate AI theft Support those in front of you Represent those behind you Those suffering most acutely & most immediately are at the front You should recognize that & support them because you could be next The larger general public behind you is necessary for a coalition big enough to take collective action Your advocacy has got to come in a way that’s actually motivating to them too Effective coalition building means focusing on what we have in common And, fortunately, we have in common that most people do NOT like AI copyright theft or corporate greed

@SalomonsenJonas @lilyraynyc @mblumenthal #awkward…

@lilyraynyc @mblumenthal Totally

Check it out, a Google Product Expert responded to one of the many dozens of requests to turn off AI overviews in Google's support communities. My responses to his responses? - Be more specific? I thought the entire benefit of the AI overviews was their ability to answer highly specific queries... ok. - Use search operators? Wow... now the onus is on the average user to memorize search operators in order to get the best response? Listen, I love them and use them daily, but this is my field of work. - Use the Web feature? YES. 100 times YES. But unfortunately, Google hid it behind a "More" button (which my teammates confirmed seeing in the wild today)... so the average searcher needs to click twice to get back to classic search results? - Don't disregard AI? But just be skeptical about its responses? Which one is it? Why is the burden on the user to go verify the things AI Overviews states, usually matter-of-factly? - Consider other search engines. Yeesh. Never thought I'd see the day we see this recommendation in a Google forum.

@searchliaison @Katie16282772 @dannysullivan Thanks Danny, I’m more than happy to have a chat about what would be useful for independent publishers and how Google could help further….

Two different things. A site could have an algorithmic spam action. A site could be not ranking well because other systems that *are not about spam* just don't see it as helpful. I've looked at many sites where people have complained about losing rankings and decide they have a algorithmic spam action against them, but they don't. That's why I'm supportive of the idea we'd perhaps share as much in Search Console. That maybe you could go into Search Console and if you have an algorithmic action, you'd see a notice just like if you have a manual action. I was just talking about this with some folks on the search team last week, and I expect to revisit the idea. It's not a new idea, either. It's challenging, however, in two key ways. First, there are some sites that do really bad spamming. Anyone who thinks that's not them -- you're right, it probably isn't. Those that do, they know. And if you tell them what the algorithm thinks is spam, then they can adjust and try to game it -- not good for anyone, searchers or other sites. Second, there's no way to "manually" lift an algo action. It's the algorithm. It's not focusing on a specific site. It doesn't have a list of sites added to it. It's automatically understanding patterns that make it think "across all this content, I see these patterns, and this makes me think generally I see spam here." So there's no way to go in and somehow "remove" a site, if that makes sense. With an actual manual action, we can -- because an action was placed against a specific site. And ... I'm greatly sympathetic to the idea that with a manual action, you can file for reconsideration and get the manual action removed versus with the algo, a sense of not only do I not know, but if I did, I can't even talk to someone about it. One thing I'm wondering is if there's a way, at least as a start, that we could let people who got notifications say "Not spam!" kind of like with email. And maybe we could use those reports in aggregate to better improve the automated spam systems overall. Of course, the challenge is actual people who are knowingly spamming might say the same thing, so it takes some thinking about how we might come up with a system that would be useful. Part of what I'm hoping to talk to folks more internally about. Before I leave the spam thing -- you don't really want to think "Oh, I just wish I had a manual action, that would be so much easier." You really don't want your individual site coming the attention of our spam analysts. First, it's not like manual actions are somehow instantly processed. Second, it's just something we know about a site going forward, especially if it says it has change but hasn't really. Moving away from spam, we do have various systems that try to determine how helpful, useful and reliable individual content and sites are (and they're not perfect, as I've said many times before, anticipating a chorus of "whatabouts....." Some people who think they are impacted by this, I've looked at the same data they can see in Search Console and ... not really. Some of them ranking really well. But they've moved down a bit in small positions enough that the traffic drop is notable. They assume they have fundamental issues but don't, really -- which is why we added a whole section about this to our debugging traffic drops page: #small" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">developers.google.com/search/docs/mo… But some clearly have had large drops. Another thing I've been discussing, and I'm not alone in this, is could we do more in Search Console to show some of these indicators. This is all challenging similar to all the stuff I said about spam, about how not wanting to let the systems get gamed, and also how there's then no button we would push that's like "actually more useful than our automated systems think -- rank it better!" But maybe there's a way we can find to share more, in a way that helps everyone and coupled with better guidance, would help creators. Which is a lot of words. But I'll end on this, I've spent a huge amount of time looking at the feedback over the past few months, diving deep into sites, writing up thoughts and talking with people internally. I fully recognize that there are "small" or "independent" or whatever you want to call them sites that are diligently producing great content but our systems aren't recognizing it as well as they should (there's also a lot of really poor content that our systems are indeed recognizing, and there's also great content that is doing very well -- but those doing very well with great stuff tend not to talk about that on the socials). I'd like to see us do better with that subset I mentioned, the great content not well recognized. Better in helping to guide away from maybe unhelpful things that have been learned by others? By better guidance. Maybe better reporting. And some other things I'm pondering we might try. I just can't do that overnight, nor can I do it myself, nor is is the primary thing I'm responsible. I work with other teams and suggest, encourage, recommend -- but other teams have to go-ahead on stuff. And they also have to balance various trade-offs and other things. But why I can do -- have been doing and will continue to do -- is take the external feedback, channel that back to various teams and provided advocacy and recommendations in ways that I think would help all around.

@harisiddique @lilyraynyc heads up, your domain is in the wording of the screen shot..

Just spoke with a publisher that received a manual action. They have an in-house coupon team that sources all the coupons directly. Like, actual employees of the publisher company with no third party involvement. What was this bullet point even for?

@JohnMu if you are a big publisher and happen to own a specific coupon code site, and then allowed your technology/coupons to be used across all of the brands you own is that also seen negatively or is that accepted as being ok?